In response to a BYE and an ACK from some (not all) servers that send to our proxy, our server's spitting back a 483 'Too many hops' reply.
It doesn't happen with all peers, and it certainly doesn't happen locally... but it does happen with some, and I'm not entirely sure as to why.
The 483 block at the beginning is normal:
if (msg:len > max_len ) { sl_send_reply("513", "Message too big"); break; };
Exchange looks like this:
U 198.65.166.131:5060 -> 63.64.65.66:5060 BYE sip:1101XXXXXXX@63.64.65.66:5060 SIP/2.0. Record-Route: sip:198.65.166.131;ftag=gpp0q468oh;lr. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 198.65.166.131;branch=z9hG4bK9b05.b75fbe14.0. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.51:2054;received=63.XX.XX.XX;branch=z9hG4bK-wdtud2nffq88;rport=2054. Route: sip:63.64.65.66;ftag=gpp0q468oh;lr=on. From: "User One" sip:1747XXXXXXX@their.proxy.server:5060;tag=gpp0q468oh. To: sip:1101XXXXXXX@their.proxy.server;user=phone;tag=as7fbbcb66. Call-ID: 3c267038e7ef-586eg1emcfsi@snom190. CSeq: 2 BYE. Max-Forwards: 16. Contact: sip:1747XXXXXXX@192.168.1.51:2054;line=oxd9zlst;nat=yes. User-Agent: snom190/3.60x. Content-Length: 0. RemoteIP: 63.XX.XX.XX. P-hint: rr-enforced. P-NATed-URI: YES (1). P-RTP-Proxy: YES (1).
U 63.64.65.66:5060 -> 198.65.166.131:5060 SIP/2.0 483 Too Many Hops. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 198.65.166.131;branch=z9hG4bK9b05.b75fbe14.0. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.51:2054;received=63.XX.XX.XX;branch=z9hG4bK-wdtud2nffq88;rport=2054. From: "User One" sip:1747XXXXXXX@their.proxy.server:5060;tag=gpp0q468oh. To: sip:1101XXXXXXX@their.proxy.server;user=phone;tag=as7fbbcb66. Call-ID: 3c267038e7ef-586eg1emcfsi@snom190. CSeq: 2 BYE. Server: Sip EXpress router (0.9.6 (i386/linux)). Content-Length: 0. Warning: 392 63.64.65.66:5060 "Noisy feedback tells: pid=3488 req_src_ip=63.64.65.66 req_src_port=5060 in_uri=sip:1101XXXXXXX@63.64.65.66:5060 out_uri=sip:1101XXXXXXX@63.64.65.66:5060 via_cnt==18".
What would be causing this? Is it because the IP address is being used in the URI to us as opposed to the domain (I tried adding the IP to the domain table and to an alias line alternately, but it didn't fix things) ?
It's irksome in that it only happens with certain peers and not others, so there's something in the way we're handling messages from them that's not right or different, but since we handle all incoming the same way, I'm at a loss as to why it works with some but not with others.
N.
SIP wrote:
In response to a BYE and an ACK from some (not all) servers that send to our proxy, our server's spitting back a 483 'Too many hops' reply.
It doesn't happen with all peers, and it certainly doesn't happen locally... but it does happen with some, and I'm not entirely sure as to why.
The 483 block at the beginning is normal:
if (msg:len > max_len ) { sl_send_reply("513", "Message too big"); break; };
Exchange looks like this:
U 198.65.166.131:5060 -> 63.64.65.66:5060 BYE sip:1101XXXXXXX@63.64.65.66:5060 SIP/2.0. Record-Route: sip:198.65.166.131;ftag=gpp0q468oh;lr. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 198.65.166.131;branch=z9hG4bK9b05.b75fbe14.0. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.51:2054;received=63.XX.XX.XX;branch=z9hG4bK-wdtud2nffq88;rport=2054. Route: sip:63.64.65.66;ftag=gpp0q468oh;lr=on. From: "User One" sip:1747XXXXXXX@their.proxy.server:5060;tag=gpp0q468oh. To: sip:1101XXXXXXX@their.proxy.server;user=phone;tag=as7fbbcb66. Call-ID: 3c267038e7ef-586eg1emcfsi@snom190. CSeq: 2 BYE. Max-Forwards: 16. Contact: sip:1747XXXXXXX@192.168.1.51:2054;line=oxd9zlst;nat=yes. User-Agent: snom190/3.60x. Content-Length: 0. RemoteIP: 63.XX.XX.XX. P-hint: rr-enforced. P-NATed-URI: YES (1). P-RTP-Proxy: YES (1).
U 63.64.65.66:5060 -> 198.65.166.131:5060 SIP/2.0 483 Too Many Hops. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 198.65.166.131;branch=z9hG4bK9b05.b75fbe14.0. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.51:2054;received=63.XX.XX.XX;branch=z9hG4bK-wdtud2nffq88;rport=2054. From: "User One" sip:1747XXXXXXX@their.proxy.server:5060;tag=gpp0q468oh. To: sip:1101XXXXXXX@their.proxy.server;user=phone;tag=as7fbbcb66. Call-ID: 3c267038e7ef-586eg1emcfsi@snom190. CSeq: 2 BYE. Server: Sip EXpress router (0.9.6 (i386/linux)). Content-Length: 0. Warning: 392 63.64.65.66:5060 "Noisy feedback tells: pid=3488 req_src_ip=63.64.65.66 req_src_port=5060 in_uri=sip:1101XXXXXXX@63.64.65.66:5060 out_uri=sip:1101XXXXXXX@63.64.65.66:5060 via_cnt==18".
What would be causing this? Is it because the IP address is being used in the URI to us as opposed to the domain (I tried adding the IP to the domain table and to an alias line alternately, but it didn't fix things) ?
It's irksome in that it only happens with certain peers and not others, so there's something in the way we're handling messages from them that's not right or different, but since we handle all incoming the same way, I'm at a loss as to why it works with some but not with others.
N. _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Obviously, that 483 block should have been:
if (!mf_process_maxfwd_header("10")) { sl_send_reply("483","Too Many Hops"); break; };
And NOT the next block in the config. :)
N.
Yes, you probably have an internal loop. You should see it on the interface. The first iteration, the Route header will be found, it points to local SER, it is removed and it is thus not loose routed, the uri is probably not rewritten, so it is t_relayed to itself... Look at the via_cnt in the warning... g-)
SIP wrote:
In response to a BYE and an ACK from some (not all) servers that send to our proxy, our server's spitting back a 483 'Too many hops' reply.
It doesn't happen with all peers, and it certainly doesn't happen locally... but it does happen with some, and I'm not entirely sure as to why.
The 483 block at the beginning is normal:
if (msg:len > max_len ) { sl_send_reply("513", "Message too big"); break; };
Exchange looks like this:
U 198.65.166.131:5060 -> 63.64.65.66:5060 BYE sip:1101XXXXXXX@63.64.65.66:5060 SIP/2.0. Record-Route: sip:198.65.166.131;ftag=gpp0q468oh;lr. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 198.65.166.131;branch=z9hG4bK9b05.b75fbe14.0. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.51:2054;received=63.XX.XX.XX;branch=z9hG4bK-wdtud2nffq88;rport=2054. Route: sip:63.64.65.66;ftag=gpp0q468oh;lr=on. From: "User One" sip:1747XXXXXXX@their.proxy.server:5060;tag=gpp0q468oh. To: sip:1101XXXXXXX@their.proxy.server;user=phone;tag=as7fbbcb66. Call-ID: 3c267038e7ef-586eg1emcfsi@snom190. CSeq: 2 BYE. Max-Forwards: 16. Contact: sip:1747XXXXXXX@192.168.1.51:2054;line=oxd9zlst;nat=yes. User-Agent: snom190/3.60x. Content-Length: 0. RemoteIP: 63.XX.XX.XX. P-hint: rr-enforced. P-NATed-URI: YES (1). P-RTP-Proxy: YES (1).
U 63.64.65.66:5060 -> 198.65.166.131:5060 SIP/2.0 483 Too Many Hops. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 198.65.166.131;branch=z9hG4bK9b05.b75fbe14.0. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.51:2054;received=63.XX.XX.XX;branch=z9hG4bK-wdtud2nffq88;rport=2054. From: "User One" sip:1747XXXXXXX@their.proxy.server:5060;tag=gpp0q468oh. To: sip:1101XXXXXXX@their.proxy.server;user=phone;tag=as7fbbcb66. Call-ID: 3c267038e7ef-586eg1emcfsi@snom190. CSeq: 2 BYE. Server: Sip EXpress router (0.9.6 (i386/linux)). Content-Length: 0. Warning: 392 63.64.65.66:5060 "Noisy feedback tells: pid=3488 req_src_ip=63.64.65.66 req_src_port=5060 in_uri=sip:1101XXXXXXX@63.64.65.66:5060 out_uri=sip:1101XXXXXXX@63.64.65.66:5060 via_cnt==18".
What would be causing this? Is it because the IP address is being used in the URI to us as opposed to the domain (I tried adding the IP to the domain table and to an alias line alternately, but it didn't fix things) ?
It's irksome in that it only happens with certain peers and not others, so there's something in the way we're handling messages from them that's not right or different, but since we handle all incoming the same way, I'm at a loss as to why it works with some but not with others.
N. _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
I'm not sure I understand, Greger. I see the via_cnt, but that's the first (and only) BYE message that comes through. I would have thought had I been looping around, I might see a few more on the interface. Also, why does this ONLY happen with certain peers, but not with most others and not with anything local? And why only on BYE and ACK messages but not INVITE?
So... confused....
Just when I think I have a handle on SER, it turns around and does something like this.
Greger V. Teigre wrote:
Yes, you probably have an internal loop. You should see it on the interface. The first iteration, the Route header will be found, it points to local SER, it is removed and it is thus not loose routed, the uri is probably not rewritten, so it is t_relayed to itself... Look at the via_cnt in the warning... g-)
SIP wrote:
In response to a BYE and an ACK from some (not all) servers that send to our proxy, our server's spitting back a 483 'Too many hops' reply.
It doesn't happen with all peers, and it certainly doesn't happen locally... but it does happen with some, and I'm not entirely sure as to why.
The 483 block at the beginning is normal:
if (msg:len > max_len ) { sl_send_reply("513", "Message too big"); break; };
Exchange looks like this:
U 198.65.166.131:5060 -> 63.64.65.66:5060 BYE sip:1101XXXXXXX@63.64.65.66:5060 SIP/2.0. Record-Route: sip:198.65.166.131;ftag=gpp0q468oh;lr. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 198.65.166.131;branch=z9hG4bK9b05.b75fbe14.0. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.51:2054;received=63.XX.XX.XX;branch=z9hG4bK-wdtud2nffq88;rport=2054.
Route: sip:63.64.65.66;ftag=gpp0q468oh;lr=on. From: "User One" sip:1747XXXXXXX@their.proxy.server:5060;tag=gpp0q468oh. To: sip:1101XXXXXXX@their.proxy.server;user=phone;tag=as7fbbcb66. Call-ID: 3c267038e7ef-586eg1emcfsi@snom190. CSeq: 2 BYE. Max-Forwards: 16. Contact: sip:1747XXXXXXX@192.168.1.51:2054;line=oxd9zlst;nat=yes. User-Agent: snom190/3.60x. Content-Length: 0. RemoteIP: 63.XX.XX.XX. P-hint: rr-enforced. P-NATed-URI: YES (1). P-RTP-Proxy: YES (1).
U 63.64.65.66:5060 -> 198.65.166.131:5060 SIP/2.0 483 Too Many Hops. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 198.65.166.131;branch=z9hG4bK9b05.b75fbe14.0. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.51:2054;received=63.XX.XX.XX;branch=z9hG4bK-wdtud2nffq88;rport=2054.
From: "User One" sip:1747XXXXXXX@their.proxy.server:5060;tag=gpp0q468oh. To: sip:1101XXXXXXX@their.proxy.server;user=phone;tag=as7fbbcb66. Call-ID: 3c267038e7ef-586eg1emcfsi@snom190. CSeq: 2 BYE. Server: Sip EXpress router (0.9.6 (i386/linux)). Content-Length: 0. Warning: 392 63.64.65.66:5060 "Noisy feedback tells: pid=3488 req_src_ip=63.64.65.66 req_src_port=5060 in_uri=sip:1101XXXXXXX@63.64.65.66:5060 out_uri=sip:1101XXXXXXX@63.64.65.66:5060 via_cnt==18".
What would be causing this? Is it because the IP address is being used in the URI to us as opposed to the domain (I tried adding the IP to the domain table and to an alias line alternately, but it didn't fix things) ?
It's irksome in that it only happens with certain peers and not others, so there's something in the way we're handling messages from them that's not right or different, but since we handle all incoming the same way, I'm at a loss as to why it works with some but not with others.
N. _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Just run tcpdump/tethereal/tshark on special "any" interface and you'll see the messages going to the box itself (over loopback interface).
Why ...? Check the request uri of the BYE.... you've probably rewritten the Contact header of the INVITE or smthg like that.
Michal
On Čt, 2007-06-28 at 05:53 -0400, SIP wrote:
I'm not sure I understand, Greger. I see the via_cnt, but that's the first (and only) BYE message that comes through. I would have thought had I been looping around, I might see a few more on the interface. Also, why does this ONLY happen with certain peers, but not with most others and not with anything local? And why only on BYE and ACK messages but not INVITE?
So... confused....
Just when I think I have a handle on SER, it turns around and does something like this.
Greger V. Teigre wrote:
Yes, you probably have an internal loop. You should see it on the interface. The first iteration, the Route header will be found, it points to local SER, it is removed and it is thus not loose routed, the uri is probably not rewritten, so it is t_relayed to itself... Look at the via_cnt in the warning... g-)
SIP wrote:
In response to a BYE and an ACK from some (not all) servers that send to our proxy, our server's spitting back a 483 'Too many hops' reply.
It doesn't happen with all peers, and it certainly doesn't happen locally... but it does happen with some, and I'm not entirely sure as to why.
The 483 block at the beginning is normal:
if (msg:len > max_len ) { sl_send_reply("513", "Message too big"); break; };
Exchange looks like this:
U 198.65.166.131:5060 -> 63.64.65.66:5060 BYE sip:1101XXXXXXX@63.64.65.66:5060 SIP/2.0. Record-Route: sip:198.65.166.131;ftag=gpp0q468oh;lr. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 198.65.166.131;branch=z9hG4bK9b05.b75fbe14.0. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.51:2054;received=63.XX.XX.XX;branch=z9hG4bK-wdtud2nffq88;rport=2054.
Route: sip:63.64.65.66;ftag=gpp0q468oh;lr=on. From: "User One" sip:1747XXXXXXX@their.proxy.server:5060;tag=gpp0q468oh. To: sip:1101XXXXXXX@their.proxy.server;user=phone;tag=as7fbbcb66. Call-ID: 3c267038e7ef-586eg1emcfsi@snom190. CSeq: 2 BYE. Max-Forwards: 16. Contact: sip:1747XXXXXXX@192.168.1.51:2054;line=oxd9zlst;nat=yes. User-Agent: snom190/3.60x. Content-Length: 0. RemoteIP: 63.XX.XX.XX. P-hint: rr-enforced. P-NATed-URI: YES (1). P-RTP-Proxy: YES (1).
U 63.64.65.66:5060 -> 198.65.166.131:5060 SIP/2.0 483 Too Many Hops. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 198.65.166.131;branch=z9hG4bK9b05.b75fbe14.0. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.51:2054;received=63.XX.XX.XX;branch=z9hG4bK-wdtud2nffq88;rport=2054.
From: "User One" sip:1747XXXXXXX@their.proxy.server:5060;tag=gpp0q468oh. To: sip:1101XXXXXXX@their.proxy.server;user=phone;tag=as7fbbcb66. Call-ID: 3c267038e7ef-586eg1emcfsi@snom190. CSeq: 2 BYE. Server: Sip EXpress router (0.9.6 (i386/linux)). Content-Length: 0. Warning: 392 63.64.65.66:5060 "Noisy feedback tells: pid=3488 req_src_ip=63.64.65.66 req_src_port=5060 in_uri=sip:1101XXXXXXX@63.64.65.66:5060 out_uri=sip:1101XXXXXXX@63.64.65.66:5060 via_cnt==18".
What would be causing this? Is it because the IP address is being used in the URI to us as opposed to the domain (I tried adding the IP to the domain table and to an alias line alternately, but it didn't fix things) ?
It's irksome in that it only happens with certain peers and not others, so there's something in the way we're handling messages from them that's not right or different, but since we handle all incoming the same way, I'm at a loss as to why it works with some but not with others.
N. _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
I've looked and looked and I can't find a loop in the config code (I do rewrite the contact header of the INVITE with a fix_nated_contact() on a failed check of a nat test, but I do that for ALL calls locally and peered, and it only affects calls from some peers, not others (and removing it does nothing)). It's clear a loop is occurring... I just can't figure out where.
The first ACK to come through, for instance, looks like this:
U 198.65.166.131:5060 -> 63.64.65.66:5060 ACK sip:201@63.64.65.66:5060 SIP/2.0. Record-Route: sip:198.65.166.131;ftag=qvog5szdic;lr. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 198.65.166.131;branch=0. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.51:2051;received=63.95.XX.XX;branch=z9hG4bK-zogadalsc3gs;rport=2051. Route: sip:63.64.65.66;ftag=qvog5szdic;lr=on. From: "User One" sip:1747XXXXXXX@proxy01.sipphone.com:5060;tag=qvog5szdic. To: sip:1101201@proxy01.sipphone.com;user=phone;tag=00000A3D32CAFBE9. Call-ID: 3c26927a1fbd-uq2r1lq59bfi@snom190. CSeq: 1 ACK. Max-Forwards: 16. Contact: sip:1747XXXXXXX@192.168.1.51:2051;line=oxd9zlst;nat=yes. Content-Length: 0. P-hint: rr-enforced. P-NATed-URI: YES (1). P-RTP-Proxy: YES (1).
It will hit the ACK block in the SER config:
if(method=="ACK") { route(1); break; }
Which will then hit the route[1] block:
route[1] { t_on_reply("1");
setflag(3); if (!t_relay()) { sl_reply_error(); };
}
But for some reason, it sends it to itself... and moments later, I end up with something like:
U 63.64.65.66:5060 -> 63.64.65.66:5060 ACK sip:201@63.64.65.66:5060 SIP/2.0. Record-Route: sip:63.64.65.66;ftag=qvog5szdic;lr=on. Record-Route: sip:63.64.65.66;ftag=qvog5szdic;lr=on. Record-Route: sip:63.64.65.66;ftag=qvog5szdic;lr=on. Record-Route: sip:63.64.65.66;ftag=qvog5szdic;lr=on. Record-Route: sip:63.64.65.66;ftag=qvog5szdic;lr=on. Record-Route: sip:63.64.65.66;ftag=qvog5szdic;lr=on. Record-Route: sip:198.65.166.131;ftag=qvog5szdic;lr. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 63.64.65.66;branch=0. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 63.64.65.66;branch=0. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 63.64.65.66;branch=0. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 63.64.65.66;branch=0. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 63.64.65.66;branch=0. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 63.64.65.66;branch=0. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 198.65.166.131;branch=0. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.51:2051;received=63.95.XX.XX;branch=z9hG4bK-zogadalsc3gs;rport=2051. From: "User One" sip:1747XXXXXXX@proxy01.sipphone.com:5060;tag=qvog5szdic. To: sip:1101201@proxy01.sipphone.com;user=phone;tag=00000A3D32CAFBE9. Call-ID: 3c26927a1fbd-uq2r1lq59bfi@snom190. CSeq: 1 ACK. Max-Forwards: 10. Contact: sip:1747XXXXXXX@192.168.1.51:2051;line=oxd9zlst;nat=yes. Content-Length: 0. P-hint: rr-enforced. P-NATed-URI: YES (1). P-RTP-Proxy: YES (1).
You know... as I look at things, I think I know what the problem is. Not sure how to solve it, though...
When someone dials a URI bound for SEMS, my SER looks at it and sends it off to SEMS. When the call is coming in from a local user, SER forwards the ACK on to the correct location without a hitch. However, when the call comes in from a non-local user, for some reason, the ACK isn't getting sent on to the correct location (be it SEMS or the PSTN gateway).
For instance, in the above example, 201 is an extension for the announcement message on SEMS (running on port 5090 on the same machine). If I call from a user directly registered with my proxy, I can see the ACK forwarded on to SEMS. If it comes from a non-local user, it looks like the above.
Now... (and forgive me if I'm blathering... writing about this helps me think through it) I'm thinking that, since I specifically say something like:
if(uri =~ "^sip:201@") { rewritehostport("blah"); }
in my INVITE block, that's not going to account for the ACKs or BYEs (though... it seems to locally, which has me confused). In fact, if I put the above block into the ACK check block, it seems to work even from a non-locally-registered client. SO.... somehow, this all works differently for locally-registered UAs sending a SIP URI directly to the proxy than it does for a UA registered with a peer sending a SIP URI to to the peer and then to our proxy. Something is different... I just can't figure out exactly what it is.
I COULD (and perhaps should) create an extra routing block to handle all those extra rewrites and simply call that from the ACK, CANCEL, BYE, or INVITE blocks. It might solve the issue... but until I know exactly what's causing the issue, I daren't do that as I'm liable to create even more problems (and with a 2000 line ser.cfg, creating problems is going to be easy to do).
So what do you think? Any ideas on what might cause different routing behaviour for locally-registered and non-locally-registered UAs? Would taking the approach of tossing all the rewrites into a separate routing block and calling it from the ACK, CANCEL, BYE, and INVITE blocks be just heading down the wrong path?
N.
Michal Matyska wrote:
Just run tcpdump/tethereal/tshark on special "any" interface and you'll see the messages going to the box itself (over loopback interface).
Why ...? Check the request uri of the BYE.... you've probably rewritten the Contact header of the INVITE or smthg like that.
Michal
On Čt, 2007-06-28 at 05:53 -0400, SIP wrote:
I'm not sure I understand, Greger. I see the via_cnt, but that's the first (and only) BYE message that comes through. I would have thought had I been looping around, I might see a few more on the interface. Also, why does this ONLY happen with certain peers, but not with most others and not with anything local? And why only on BYE and ACK messages but not INVITE?
So... confused....
Just when I think I have a handle on SER, it turns around and does something like this.
Greger V. Teigre wrote:
Yes, you probably have an internal loop. You should see it on the interface. The first iteration, the Route header will be found, it points to local SER, it is removed and it is thus not loose routed, the uri is probably not rewritten, so it is t_relayed to itself... Look at the via_cnt in the warning... g-)
SIP wrote:
In response to a BYE and an ACK from some (not all) servers that send to our proxy, our server's spitting back a 483 'Too many hops' reply.
It doesn't happen with all peers, and it certainly doesn't happen locally... but it does happen with some, and I'm not entirely sure as to why.
The 483 block at the beginning is normal:
if (msg:len > max_len ) { sl_send_reply("513", "Message too big"); break; };
Exchange looks like this:
U 198.65.166.131:5060 -> 63.64.65.66:5060 BYE sip:1101XXXXXXX@63.64.65.66:5060 SIP/2.0. Record-Route: sip:198.65.166.131;ftag=gpp0q468oh;lr. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 198.65.166.131;branch=z9hG4bK9b05.b75fbe14.0. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.51:2054;received=63.XX.XX.XX;branch=z9hG4bK-wdtud2nffq88;rport=2054.
Route: sip:63.64.65.66;ftag=gpp0q468oh;lr=on. From: "User One" sip:1747XXXXXXX@their.proxy.server:5060;tag=gpp0q468oh. To: sip:1101XXXXXXX@their.proxy.server;user=phone;tag=as7fbbcb66. Call-ID: 3c267038e7ef-586eg1emcfsi@snom190. CSeq: 2 BYE. Max-Forwards: 16. Contact: sip:1747XXXXXXX@192.168.1.51:2054;line=oxd9zlst;nat=yes. User-Agent: snom190/3.60x. Content-Length: 0. RemoteIP: 63.XX.XX.XX. P-hint: rr-enforced. P-NATed-URI: YES (1). P-RTP-Proxy: YES (1).
U 63.64.65.66:5060 -> 198.65.166.131:5060 SIP/2.0 483 Too Many Hops. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 198.65.166.131;branch=z9hG4bK9b05.b75fbe14.0. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.51:2054;received=63.XX.XX.XX;branch=z9hG4bK-wdtud2nffq88;rport=2054.
From: "User One" sip:1747XXXXXXX@their.proxy.server:5060;tag=gpp0q468oh. To: sip:1101XXXXXXX@their.proxy.server;user=phone;tag=as7fbbcb66. Call-ID: 3c267038e7ef-586eg1emcfsi@snom190. CSeq: 2 BYE. Server: Sip EXpress router (0.9.6 (i386/linux)). Content-Length: 0. Warning: 392 63.64.65.66:5060 "Noisy feedback tells: pid=3488 req_src_ip=63.64.65.66 req_src_port=5060 in_uri=sip:1101XXXXXXX@63.64.65.66:5060 out_uri=sip:1101XXXXXXX@63.64.65.66:5060 via_cnt==18".
What would be causing this? Is it because the IP address is being used in the URI to us as opposed to the domain (I tried adding the IP to the domain table and to an alias line alternately, but it didn't fix things) ?
It's irksome in that it only happens with certain peers and not others, so there's something in the way we're handling messages from them that's not right or different, but since we handle all incoming the same way, I'm at a loss as to why it works with some but not with others.
N. _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
SIP wrote:
setflag(3); if (!t_relay()) { sl_reply_error(); }; }
But for some reason, it sends it to itself... and moments later, I end up with something like: U 63.64.65.66:5060 -> 63.64.65.66:5060ACK sip:201@63.64.65.66:5060 SIP/2.0.Record-Route:
Your ACK is going to the wrong port. If you say SEMS is on 5090 then the remote end is not sending the ACK to the correct port. You will need to take a look at the whole SIP message exchange to see if its your fault or the other providers fault.
So what do you think? Any ideas on what might cause different routing behaviour for locally-registered and non-locally-registered UAs? Would taking the approach of tossing all the rewrites into a separate routing block and calling it from the ACK, CANCEL, BYE, and INVITE blocks be just heading down the wrong path?
Yes, and again a complete comparison of SIP messages in both test cases will reveal why. Look at the contact header throughout all messages to see what happens. The non-locally-registered UAs are sending the ACK to the wrong port.
Andres http://www.telesip.net
Andres wrote:
SIP wrote:
setflag(3); if (!t_relay()) { sl_reply_error(); }; }
But for some reason, it sends it to itself... and moments later, I end up with something like: U 63.64.65.66:5060 -> 63.64.65.66:5060ACK sip:201@63.64.65.66:5060 SIP/2.0.Record-Route:
Your ACK is going to the wrong port. If you say SEMS is on 5090 then the remote end is not sending the ACK to the correct port. You will need to take a look at the whole SIP message exchange to see if its your fault or the other providers fault.
Just a clarification. When I say it is sending the ACK to the wrong port I am refering to this part of the message: ACK sip:201@63.64.65.66:5060 (which is build from Contact Header details). ..not this part: U 63.64.65.66:5060 -> 63.64.65.66:5060
So what do you think? Any ideas on what might cause different routing behaviour for locally-registered and non-locally-registered UAs? Would taking the approach of tossing all the rewrites into a separate routing block and calling it from the ACK, CANCEL, BYE, and INVITE blocks be just heading down the wrong path?
Yes, and again a complete comparison of SIP messages in both test cases will reveal why. Look at the contact header throughout all messages to see what happens. The non-locally-registered UAs are sending the ACK to the wrong port.
Andres http://www.telesip.net _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Right. That's the part that's difficult to discover. Where the problem lies.
The INVITE gets there correctly... I see the path.
UA ---> INVITE 1101201 ---> other proxy ---> INVITE 201 ---> our proxy:5060 ---> INVITE 201 ---> our proxy:5090 ---> 200 OK
The ACK, however, takes a slightly different path:
other proxy ---> ACK 201 ---> our proxy:5060 ---> ACK 201 ---> our proxy:5060 ---> rinse ---> repeat
However, from locally registered clients, the path is:
UA ---> ACK 201 ---> our proxy:5060 ---> ACK 201 ---> our proxy:5090 ---> life is good.
It's the whole discrepancy that throws me. I mean... the SIP messages are, for all intents and purposes, going through the same config. I can't figure out why one client would not experience the same issues as any other client, locally registered or not.
The Contact header response from the INVITE is correct:
Contact: sip:201@63.64.65.66:5090.
But then, the INVITE goes through a series of rewrites of the host/port based on the URI before t_relay. ACKs just go straight to t_relay. I guess I'm not 100% sure who writes/rewrites the Contact header.
N.
Andres wrote:
Andres wrote:
SIP wrote:
setflag(3); if (!t_relay()) { sl_reply_error(); }; }
But for some reason, it sends it to itself... and moments later, I end up with something like: U 63.64.65.66:5060 -> 63.64.65.66:5060ACK sip:201@63.64.65.66:5060 SIP/2.0.Record-Route:
Your ACK is going to the wrong port. If you say SEMS is on 5090 then the remote end is not sending the ACK to the correct port. You will need to take a look at the whole SIP message exchange to see if its your fault or the other providers fault.
Just a clarification. When I say it is sending the ACK to the wrong port I am refering to this part of the message: ACK sip:201@63.64.65.66:5060 (which is build from Contact Header details). ..not this part: U 63.64.65.66:5060 -> 63.64.65.66:5060
So what do you think? Any ideas on what might cause different routing behaviour for locally-registered and non-locally-registered UAs? Would taking the approach of tossing all the rewrites into a separate routing block and calling it from the ACK, CANCEL, BYE, and INVITE blocks be just heading down the wrong path?
Yes, and again a complete comparison of SIP messages in both test cases will reveal why. Look at the contact header throughout all messages to see what happens. The non-locally-registered UAs are sending the ACK to the wrong port.
Andres http://www.telesip.net _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
SIP wrote:
Right. That's the part that's difficult to discover. Where the problem lies.
The INVITE gets there correctly... I see the path.
UA ---> INVITE 1101201 ---> other proxy ---> INVITE 201 ---> our proxy:5060 ---> INVITE 201 ---> our proxy:5090 ---> 200 OK
The ACK, however, takes a slightly different path:
other proxy ---> ACK 201 ---> our proxy:5060 ---> ACK 201 ---> our proxy:5060 ---> rinse ---> repeat
However, from locally registered clients, the path is:
UA ---> ACK 201 ---> our proxy:5060 ---> ACK 201 ---> our proxy:5090 ---> life is good.
It's the whole discrepancy that throws me. I mean... the SIP messages are, for all intents and purposes, going through the same config. I can't figure out why one client would not experience the same issues as any other client, locally registered or not.
The Contact header response from the INVITE is correct:
Contact: sip:201@63.64.65.66:5090.
Look at the Contact Header inside the 200 OK message when the call is answered by SEMS and follow it through all the way to the remote end. This is the key piece of information that tells the remote end where to send the ACK. If it is indeed at port 5090 then the remote end must generate an: ACK sip:201@63.64.65.66:5090.
Andres, http://www.telesip.net
-
Andres -
Greger V. Teigre -
Michal Matyska -
SIP